Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Government Website

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Safely connect using HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations

Report Number Title Issue Date Fiscal Year
OIG-14-92 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct the audit of the DHS’ FY 2013 financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. The contract required that KPMG perform its audit according to generally accepted government auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. KPMG is responsible for the attached management letter dated December 11, 2013, and the conclusions expressed in it.

>National Flood Insurance Program’s Management Letter for FY 2013 DHS Financial Statements Audit (Redacted) 		2014
OIG-14-88 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct the audit of Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2013 consolidated financial statements. The contract required that KPMG perform its audit according to generally accepted government auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. KPMG is responsible for the attached management letter dated March 11, 2014, and the conclusion expressed in it.

>Information Technology Management Letter for the U.S. Coast Guard Component of the FY 2013 DHS Financial Statement Audit 		2014
OIG-14-90 The audit objectives were to determine whether North Dakota distributed and spent State Homeland Security Program grant funds effectively and efficiently, and in compliance with applicable Federal laws and egulations. We also addressed the extent to which grant funds enhanced North Dakota’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awarded the State approximately $14.6 million in State Homeland Security Program grants during fiscal years 2010 through 2012.

>North Dakota’s Management of Homeland Security Grant Program Awards for Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012 		2014
OIG-14-87 After the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reduced the amount ofawards in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, Alabama decided that funding statewide initiatives to assist all local jurisdictions was more beneficial than allocating smaller amounts to individual jurisdictions. The Alabama Department of Homeland Security’s investment in statewide projects may have been more beneficial and a good use of limited grant funds. Alabama, however, did not obtain the required consent of local units of government before funding the statewide initiatives. It also did not have a current state homeland security strategy and a method to measure preparedness, nor did it always follow an established internal control to approve expenditures. In most cases, subgrantees complied with procurement requirements, but they did not always comply with inventory and property record requirements.

>Alabama's Management of State Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012 		2014
OIG-14-89 The audit objectives were to determine whether the State distributed and spent State Homeland Security Program grant funds effectively and efficiently, and in compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations. We also addressed the extent to which grant funds enhanced the State’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awarded the State approximately $14.6 million in State Homeland Security Program grants during fiscal years 2010 through 2012.

>South Dakota’s Management of Homeland Security Grant Program Awards for Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012 		2014
OIG-14-86 The audit objectives were to determine whether Maine used State Homeland Security Program grant funds in accordance with the law, program guidance, state homeland security strategies, and other applicable plans. We also addressed the extent to which grant funds enhanced the ability of grantees to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. We reviewed approximately $14.5 million in State Homeland Security Program grants awarded to Maine during fiscal years 2010 through 2012. Maine did not receive Urban Areas Security Initiative grant funds.

>Maine's Management of Homeland Security Grant Program Awards for Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012 		2014
OIG-14-82 According to DHS, during fiscal year 2012, DHS components hosted or sponsored 35 conferences exceeding $100,000 at atotal cost of$7.5 million. We conducted this audit as a follow-on to our prior report DHS' Policies and Procedures Over Conferences, OIG-13-96, to determine whether the DHS conference spending was appropriate, reasonable, and necessary. The amount DHS spent on conferences was appropriate, reasonable, and necessary in most instances. Conference packages submitted for approval stated the purpose of the conference. In addition, the conference agenda reflected appropriate content and encompassed full working days for the attendees. In many instances, the components made an effort to reduce conference costs by limiting the number of attendees and selecting a location within the local area.

>DHS Conference Spending 		2014
OIG-14-80 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct the audit of Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2013 consolidated financial statements. The contract required that KPMG perform its audit according to generally accepted government auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. KPMG is responsible for the attached management letter dated March 11, 2014, and the conclusion expressed in it.

>Information Technology Management Letter for the USCIS Component of the FY 2013 DHS Financial Statement Audit 		2014
OIG-14-76 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct the audit of Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2013 consolidated financial statements. The contract required that KPMG perform its audit according to generally accepted government auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. KPMG is responsible for the attached management letter dated March 11, 2014, and the conclusion expressed in it.

>Information Technology Management Letter for the Federal Emergency Management Agency Component of the FY 2013 Department of Homeland Security Financial Statement Audit 		2014
OIG-14-81 The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Iowa distributed, administered, and spent State Homeland Security Program grant funds strategically, effectively, and in compliance with laws, regulations, and guidance. We also addressed the extent to which funds awarded enhanced the ability of Iowa grantees to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awarded Iowa approximately $14.6 million in State Homeland Security Program grants during fiscal years 2010–12. Iowa does not have an urban area designated by FEMA; therefore, it did not receive Urban Areas Security Initiative grant funds during this period.

>Iowa’s Management of Homeland Security Grant Program Awards for Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012 		2014
OIG-14-75 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct the audit of the DHS’ FY 2013 financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. The contract required that KPMG perform its audit according to generally accepted government auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. KPMG isresponsible for the attached management letter dated January 15, 2014, and the conclusions expressed in it

>The Office of Financial Management’s Management Letter for FY 2013 DHS Financial Statements Audit 		2014
OIG-14-73 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct the audit of the DHS’ FY 2013 financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. The contract required that KPMG perform its audit according to generally accepted government auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. KPMG isresponsible for the attached management letter dated January 15, 2014, and the conclusions expressed in it

>Management Directorate’s Management Letter for FY 2013 DHS Financial Statements Audit 		2014
OIG-14-70 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct the audit of the DHS’ FY 2013 financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. The contract required that KPMG perform its audit according to generally accepted government auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. KPMG isresponsible for the attached management letter dated January 15, 2014, and the conclusions expressed in it

>Intelligence and Analysis’s Management Letter for FY 2013 DHS Financial Statements Audit 		2014
OIG-14-60 The independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP conducted the audit of DHS’ FY 2013 financial statements and is responsible for the attached management letter dated January 15, 2014, and conclusions expressed in it. We do not express opinions on DHS’ financial statements or internal control, nor do we provide conclusions on compliance with laws and regulations

>Management Letter for the FY 2013 DHS Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting Audit 		2014
OIG-14-43 The Council ofthe Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency {CIGIE) tasked the Cybersecurity Working Group with undertaking a review in which it would examine the role of the Inspector General community in current Federal cybersecurity initiatives. CIGIE proposed that the Cybersecurity Working Group work under the auspices of the Information Technology (IT) Committee. As a member of the IT Committee, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was asked to lead and coordinate the Cybersecurity Working Group's efforts in identifying the Inspector Generals' cybersecurity oversight role

>Management Advisory Report: A Guide for Assessing Cyber Security within the Office of Inspector General Community 		2014
OIG-14-29 Under the Charge Card Act and OMB Memorandum M‐13‐21, Implementation of the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of 2012, our office is required to conduct periodic risk assessments of agency purchase cards (including convenience checks), combined integrated card programs, and travel card programs to analyze the risks of illegal, improper, or erroneous purchases and payments. Inspectors General (IGs) will use these risk assessments to determine the necessary scope, frequency, and number of IG audits or reviews of these programs. Also, we are required to report to the Director of OMB 120 days after the end of each fiscal year on the Department’s progress in implementing audit recommendations, and beginning with fiscal year (FY) 2013, the submission is due by January 31, 2014. This report satisfies the reporting requirement for FY 2013.

>Fiscal Year 2013 Risk Assessment of DHS Charge Card Abuse Prevention Program 		2014
OIG-14-27 We evaluated the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) enterprise-wide security program for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information intelligence systems. Pursuant to the Federal Information Security Management Act, we reviewed the Department’s security program including its policies, procedures, and system security controls for enterprise-wide intelligence systems. In doing so, we assessed the Department’s continuous monitoring, configuration management, identity and access management, incident response and reporting, risk management, security training, plans of actions and milestones, contingency planning, and security capital planning. As of May 2012, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) authorizing official assumed oversight for USCG's shore-side intelligence systems from Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). USCG is migrating portions of its Coast Guard Intelligence Support System to a multi-authorizing official structure including DHS, USCG, and Defense Intelligence Agency.

>(U) Evaluation of DHS' Intelligence Systems Compliance with FISMA Requirements for FY13 		2014
OIG-14-21 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has one of the largest motor vehicle fleets in the Federal Government, with more than 56,000 vehicles costing approximately $534 million annually. Home-to-work transportation is the use of government passenger carriers, including motor vehicles, by employees for transportation between their homes and places of work. According to DHS, home-to-work transportation is a flexible and powerful tool for meeting mission requirements and enhancing the overall responsiveness to emergency situations. Our audit objective was to determine whether DHS has implemented appropriate internal controls to ensure that home-to-work transportation is justified and used efficiently.

>DHS Home-to-Work Transportation 		2014
OIG-14-18 KPMG expressed an unmodified opinion on the Department’s balance sheet as of September 30, 2013, and the related statements of net cost, changes in net position, and custodial activity, and combined statement of budgetary resources for the year then ended (referred to as the “FY 2013 financial statements”). However, KPMG identified eight significant deficiencies in internal control, of which four are considered material weaknesses. Consequently, KPMG issued an adverse opinion on DHS’ internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2013.

>Independent Auditors' Report on DHS' FY 2013 Financial Statements and Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 		2014
OIG-14-17 A secure homeland is envisioned as a Nation that is safely protected from terrorism, as well as other manmade and natural hazards, but is also able to respond resiliently if necessary. DHS’ FY 2013 budget, including supplemental funding for Hurricane Sandy, was about $72 billion.

> Major Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security 		2014
OIG-14-09 We conducted an independent evaluation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) information security program and practices to comply with the requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act. In evaluating DHS’ progress in implementing its agency-wide information security program, we specifically assessed the Department’s plans of action and milestones, security authorization processes, and continuous monitoring programs

>Evaluation of DHS’ Information Security Program for Fiscal Year 2013 		2014
OIG-14-05 Our audit was conducted in accordance with applicable Government Auditing Standards, 2011 revision. The audit was a performance audit, as defined by Chapter 2 of the Standards, and included a review and report on program activities with a compliance element. Although the audit report comments on costs claimed by the CNMI, we did not perform a financial audit, the purpose of which would be to render an opinion on CNMI’s financial statements, or the funds claimed in the Financial Status Reports submitted to the Department of Homeland Security.

>The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands’ Management of Homeland Security Grant Program Awards for Fiscal Years 2009 Through 2011 (Revised) (PDF, 34 pages - 1.36 MB) Spotlight 		2014
OIG-14-02 We audited the National Protection and Programs Directorate’s (NPPD) efforts in coordinating with cyber operations centers across the Federal Government. The recent increase in cyber attacks has triggered an expansion of security initiatives and collaboration between the Government and the private sector. The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, which is the operational arm of the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications within NPPD, is responsible for integrating cyber threat information from the five Federal cybersecurity centers and collaborating with these centers in responding to cyber security incidents that may pose a threat to the Nation.

>DHS' Efforts to Coordinate the Activities of Federal Cyber Operations Centers 		2014
OIG-13-116 As of July 2013, ICE had 39 MOAs in 19 States, a reduction from the 64 MOAs in 24 States during fiscal year 2012. As of January 2013, all Task Force Officer Models have been discontinued. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) maintains day-to-day supervision of the 287(g) program. Within the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the 287(g) Inspections Unit assesses the effectiveness of ICE field offices in supervising and supporting 287(g) programs, as well as ICE and LEA compliance with program policies and MOA requirements. The results of 287(g) inspection reviews provide ICE management with information on the administration of the program by local ICE offices and LEAs.

>The Performance of 287(g) Agreements FY 2013 Update 		2013
OIG-13-115 We audited the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to implement Web 2.0 technology, also known as social media. The objective of our audit was to determine the effectiveness of DHS’ and its components’ use of Web 2.0 technologies to facilitate information sharing and enhance mission operations. The scope and methodology of this audit are discussed further in appendix A. Although DHS prohibits social media access to employees using a government-issued electronic device or computer unless a waiver or exception is granted, the Department has steadily increased its use of various social media sites over the past 5 years.

>DHS Uses Social Media To Enhance Information Sharing and Mission Operations, But Additional Oversight and Guidance Are Needed 		2013
OIG-13-113 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operates and maintains 20 land mobile radio networks serving more than 120,000 frontline agents and officers. These users rely on radio systems for primary communications, officer safety, and mission success. DHS manages about 197,000 radio equipment items and 3,500 infrastructure sites, with a reported value of more than $1 billion. Many of these systems have exceeded their service-life and urgently need to be modernized to meet Federal and DHS mandates. DHS has estimated that full modernization of its existing end-of-life radio systems would require a $3.2 billion investment. The audit objective was to determine whether DHS is managing its radio program and related inventory in a cost-effective manner to prevent waste of taxpayer dollars.

>DHS Needs to Manage Its Radio Communication Program Better 		2013
OIG-13-110 We conducted an audit of the efforts undertaken by the Department’s Office of the Chief Information Officer to implement and maintain continuity of operations and disaster recovery and contingency planning capabilities. The objective of our audit was to determine the progress that the Office of the Chief Information Officer has made in carrying out its continuity planning roles and developing contingency planning strategies for routine backup of critical data, programs, documentation, and personnel for recovery after an interruption.

>DHS Needs To Strengthen Information Technology Continuity and Contingency Planning Capabilities (Redacted) 		2013
OIG-13-108 We evaluated the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) enterprise-wide security program for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information intelligence systems. Pursuant to the Federal Information Security Management Act, we reviewed the Department’s security program including its policies, procedures, and system security controls for enterprise-wide intelligence systems. In doing so, we assessed the Department’s continuous monitoring, configuration management, identity and access management, incident response and reporting, risk management, security training, plans of actions and milestones, contingency planning, and security capital planning. As of May 2012, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) authorizing official assumed oversight for USCG's shore-side intelligence systems from Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A). USCG is migrating its Coast Guard Intelligence Support System to a multi-authorizing official structure including DHS, USCG, and Defense Intelligence Agency.

>Review of DHS' Information Security Program for Intelligence Systems for Fiscal Year 2013 		2013
OIG-13-106 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) creates, receives, handles, and stores classified information as part of its homeland security, emergency response, and continuity missions. As creators and users of classified information, DHS is responsible for both implementing national policies and establishing epartmental policies, to ensure that such information is adequately safeguarded when necessary and appropriately shared whenever possible. With proper classification of intelligence products, DHS can share more information with State, local, and tribal entities, as well as the private sector. The Reducing Over-Classification Act of October 2010 (Public Law 111-258) requires the DHS Secretary to develop a strategy to prevent the over-classification and promote the sharing of homeland security and other information. This is the first of two reviews we are mandated to conduct under this act.

>Reducing Over-classification of DHS’ National Security Information 		2013
OIG-13-105 In April 2012, in response to its growing caseload and limited resources, the Watchlisting Cell proposed to decentralize its watchlist nomination process by providing watchlist analyst training and certification to analysts in DHS operational components, and then delegating to the certified watchlist analysts the authority to submit terrorist nominations. We reviewed the Watchlisting Cell to determine whether (1) it is timely, effective, and efficient in submitting DHS nominations; (2) the information provided to external partners is complete, accurate, and timely; (3) establishing the Watchlisting Cell has had an effect on the DHS component nomination process; and (4) the Watchlisting Cell has developed and communicated effective policies and procedures for coordinating nomination submissions within DHS. We also reviewed whether the Watchlisting Cell has developed an effective process for providing nominator certification training, quality assurance, and the oversight necessary for decentralization, and whether it has developed an effective methodology for planning and coordinating its resources.

>DHS’ Watchlisting Cell’s Efforts To Coordinate Departmental Nominations (Redacted) 		2013
OIG-13-104 Our evaluation focused on how these components had implemented computer security technical, management, and operational controls at the airport and nearby locations. We performed onsite inspections of the areas where these assets were located, interviewed departmental staff, and conducted technical tests of internal controls. We also reviewed applicable policies, procedures, and other relevant documentation. The information technology security controls implemented at these sites have deficiencies that, if exploited, could result in the loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the components’ respective information technology systems. For example, a technical control includes regularly scanning servers for vulnerabilities. However, not all departmental servers were being scanned for vulnerabilities.

>Technical Security Evaluation of DHS Activities at Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport 		2013
OIG-13-98 The Homeland Security Information Network is a secure, unclassified Internet portal that enables information sharing and collaboration across the homeland security enterprise. In 2006 and 2008, we reported on challenges that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) faced to define the system’s role, meet user requirements, provide user support, and increase system use. We conducted a followup audit of this system to determine the progress made and the system’s effectiveness in supporting information sharing among select stakeholders.

>Homeland Security Information Network Improvements and Challenges 		2013
OIG-13-96 According to the Department, it participated in 1,094 conferences in fiscal year 2012, with expenditures totaling approximately $21.6 million. We conducted this audit in response to a mandate from the House Appropriations Committee, which directed the Office of Inspector General to report, no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of the DHS Fiscal Year 2013 Appropriations Bill, whether DHS has effective procedures in place to ensure compliance with all applicable Federal laws and regulations on conferences. The Fiscal Year 2013 Appropriations Bill was enacted on March 26, 2013.

>DHS' Policies and Procedures Over Conferences 		2013
OIG-13-68 We have audited the balance sheet of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) as of September 30, 2012 and the related statements of net cost, changes in net position and custodial activity, and combined statement of budgetary resources for the year then ended (referred to herein as the fiscal year (FY) 2012 financial statements”). The objective of our audit was to express an opinion on the fair presentation of these financial statements. We were also engaged to examine the Department’s internal control over financial reporting of the FY 2012 financial statements, based on the criteria established in Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, Appendix A.

>Management Directorate’s Management Letter for FY 2012 DHS Consolidated Financial Statements Audit 		2013
OIG-13-58 We have audited the balance sheet of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) as of September 30, 2012 and the related statements of net cost, changes in net position and custodial activity, and combined statement of budgetary resources for the year then ended (referred to herein as the “fiscal year (FY) 2012 financial statements”). The objective of our audit was to express an opinion on the fair presentation of these financial statements. We were also engaged to examine the Department’s internal control over financial reporting of the FY 2012 financial statements, based on the criteria established in Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, Appendix A.

>Information Technology Management Letter for the FY 2012 Department of Homeland Security Financial Statement Audit 		2013
OIG-13-49 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had minimal involvement in the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force Operation Fast and Furious. Our review of DHS involvement in the operation determined that senior DHS officials in Washington, DC had no awareness of the methodology used by the task force to investigate Operation Fast and Furious until media reports were published in March 2011.

>DHS Involvement in OCDETF Operation Fast and Furious (Revised) 		2013
OIG-13-38 We have audited the balance sheet of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) as of September 30, 2012 and the related statements of net cost, changes in net position and custodial activity, and combined statement of budgetary resources for the year then ended (referred to herein as the “fiscal year (FY) 2012 financial statements”). The objective of our audit was to express an opinion on the fair presentation of these financial statements.

>Management Letter for the FY 2012 DHS Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting Audit 		2013
OIG-13-36 The Department obligated about $389 million for noncompetitive contracts during fiscal year 2012. Our review of 40 contract files with a reported value of more than $174 million showed that, compared with previous reviews of noncompetitive contracts awarded during fiscal years 2008 through 2011, the Department continued to improve its management oversight of acquisition personnel’s compliance with policies and procedures. However, these personnel did not always document their consideration of vendors’ past performance when researching background on eligible contractors. As a result, the Department cannot be assured that acquisition personnel always awarded government contracts to eligible and qualified vendors as required.

>DHS Contracts Awarded Through Other Than Full and Open Competition During Fiscal Year 2012 		2013
OIG-13-21 Since our fiscal year 2011 evaluation, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has improved its oversight of Department-wide systems and established programs to monitor ongoing security practices. I&A has developed and implemented a training program to educate DHS’ growing number of personnel assigned security duties on intelligence systems. In addition, progress has been made in collaboration with other DHS components in centralizing the planning and prioritization of security weakness remediation, streamlining system configuration management, and maintaining a current systems inventory. However, we identified deficiencies at the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in system authorizations and specialized training and incident response, contingency planning, and security capital planning at the United States Secret Service (USSS).

>(U) Further Development and Reinforcement of Department Policies Can Strengthen DHS' Intelligence Systems Security Program 		2013
OIG-13-09 The attached report presents our fiscal year 2012 assessment of the major management challenges facing the Department. As required by the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-531), we update our assessment of management challenges annually. As stipulated, the report summarizes what the Inspector General considers to be the most serious management and performance challenges facing the agency and briefly assesses the agency’s progress in addressing those challenges.

>Major Management Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security (Revised) 		2013
OIG-13-20 The attached report presents the results of the u.s. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) financial statements audit for fiscal year (FY) 2012 and the results of an examination of internal control over financial reporting of those financial statements. These are mandatory audits required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act of 2004. This report is incorporated in the Department's FY 2012 Annual Financial Report. We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to perform the integrated audit.

>Independent Auditors' Report on DHS' FY 2012 Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting 		2013
OIG-13-06 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) includes an amalgamation of organizations that work together to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other threats. Such collaboration requires that components establish effective communication among external and internal partners during operations. DHS established an internal goal of developing interoperable radio communications and identified common channels, and its components invested about $430 million in equipment, infrastructure, and maintenance to meet communication requirements. We performed this audit to determine whether DHS’ oversight ensured achievement of Department-wide interoperable radio communications.

>DHS’ Oversight of Interoperable Communications 		2013
OIG-13-04 We conducted an independent evaluation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) information security program and practices to comply with the requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act. In evaluating DHS’ progress in implementing its agency-wide information security program, we specifically assessed the Department’s plans of action and milestones, security authorization processes, and continuous monitoring programs. We performed fieldwork at both the program and component levels.

>Evaluation of DHS’ Information Security Program for Fiscal Year 2012 		2013
OIG-13-03 On September 29, 2009, FEMA awarded a Transit Security Grant of $48,286,592 (number 2009-RA-RI-0105) to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port). The purpose of the grant is to fund exterior and interior mitigation measures to strengthen the PATH rail tunnels connecting cities in northern New Jersey to Manhattan. Reimbursement for eligible project costs is based on the grant agreement; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State,Local and Indian Tribal Governments, Revised; and FEMA guidance. As of March 31, 2012, the Port had claimed project costs totaling $42,020,112. The costs covered the period from September 1, 2009, through March 31, 2012.

>Costs Claimed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Under Transit Security Grant No. 2009-RA-R1-0105 		2013
OIG-12-133  

>Department of Homeland Security Compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Revisions on Proper Use and Management of Cost-Reimbursement Contracts 		2012
OIG-12-116  

>The State of Arkansas’ Management of State Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded, During Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010 		2012
OIG-12-112  

>DHS Can Strengthen Its International Cybersecurity Programs (Redacted) 		2012
OIG-12-108  

>Special Report: Summary of Significant Investigations January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011 		2012
OIG-12-91  

>FEMA’s Efforts To Recoup Improper Payments in Accordance with the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2011 (2) 		2012
OIG-12-88  

>DHS Needs To Address Portable Device Security Risks  		2012

*NDAA, Pub. L. 117-263, section 5274 Response Received. View responses

Return to top of page